# 2011-078 Careers, Compulsory Occupational Transfer (COT), Promotion

Case Summary

F&R Date: 2011–09–27

The grievor enrolled in the Canadian Forces (CF) as a Direct Entry Officer. After completion of his basic training, he was commissioned to the rank of Second Lieutenant (2Lt). His entry into the promotion zone (EPZ) date to Lieutenant (Lt) was established as September 2005. Subsequently, the grievor failed a portion of his Pilot flying training which led to his removal from flying training.

In February 2007, the grievor was reassigned, through a compulsory occupation reassignment (COR), from the Pilot occupation to the Air Combat Systems Officer occupation (ACSO). Still a 2Lt, his EPZ date to Lt was recalculated to February 2007, the date he transferred to his new occupation.

The grievor submitted a grievance to have his EPZ date to Lt changed from February 2007 back to September 2005, arguing that his pilot training had been required in order to undergo the new Air Vehicle Operator course needed to function as a pilot for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)

The initial authority, the Director General Military Careers, denied the grievance indicating that a member cannot be promoted to Lt until qualified in his new occupation following a reassignment. He added that an EPZ date in the new occupation cannot be adjusted to a date that precedes the member's COR date.

Subsequently, in the alternative, the grievor suggested the possibility of adjusting his pay increment (PI) as an acceptable measure of redress.

The Board found that the Canadian Forces Administrative Order 11-6 – Commissioning and Promotion Policy – Officers - Regular Force –, expressively states that members in the rank of 2Lt who, after failing training, transferred military occupation would have their EPZ date to Lt recalculated based on the date the transfer is effective.

The Board also found that the Compensation and Benefits Instructions (CBI) article 204.015 –Pay Increments – states that its purpose is to determine the rate of pay on enrolment, transfer or change in class of Reserve Service, none of which applied in the grievor’s case.

The Board found that the decision to establish February 2007 as the grievor’s EPZ date to Lt was reasonable in the circumstances and that the grievor was treated fairly.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance.

CDS Decision Summary

CDS Decision Date: 2011–12–20

The FA partially agreed with the Board's recommendation to deny the grievance. The FA agreed with the Board’s finding that the grievor was treated in accordance with CFAO 11-6 paragraph 18, and that he benefited from the earliest possible EPZ date for promotion to Lieutenant. The grievor’s skills acquired in a previous Pilot training was not of use to his MOC as per DAOD 5031-1 since it did not eliminate the requirement for future training.

The FA disagreed with the Board’s finding that the advantages from the grievor’s decision to deploy outweighed the fact that his career was placed on hold during this deployment. The FA also accepted the grievor’s argument that he did not volunteer. Therefore, the FA found that the grievor’s career was disadvantaged by one year in relation to his peers due to his deployment, and that is why he granted him with an additional PI under CBI 204.15(7).